Davidson v. HodgeDavidson v. Hodge
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 17, 2023
Lаw Offices of Nicholas A. Kulik, LLC, and Nicholas A. Kulik, for Appellant,
Eric L. Anderson, for Appellee.
{1} Appellant Angela Davidson (“Mother“) challenges the juvenile court‘s order granting legal custody of her two children, K.H. and L.H., to appellee Mark Hodge (“Father“).1 In two assignments of error, she contests the juvenile court‘s findings regarding two of thе statutory factors guiding its analysis of the children‘s best interest under
I. Facts and Procedure
{2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of K.H. and L.H. While Mother and Father were never married, the four lived as a family in Ohio.
{3} In June 2020, Mother and Father were drinking and “got into a heated argument” about relocating the family to Hawaii. The night culminated with Father throwing a piece of furniture through a window. Following that argument, Mother moved into her mother‘s (“Maternal Grandmother“) home in Kentucky for a brief period. Father moved for a preliminary injunction in the juvenile court to prevent the children‘s relocation. Days later, Mother moved to Hawaii with the children and Maternal Grandmother.
{4} Months before she moved the children to Hawaii with Maternal Grandmother, Mother had purchased four one-way airplane tickets to Hawaii. And one month before the move, Mother signed a lease for an apartment in Hawaii with a move-in date of June 15. Father‘s name was not on the lease.
{6} At a June 2021 custody hearing, the magistrate heard testimony from Father, Mother, and their friends, family members, and neighbors. In addition, the parties introduced pictures, videos, receipts, insurance cards, bank statements, text messages, discovery responses, pay stubs, Mother‘s lease, and a Niche.cоm evaluation of K.H.‘s elementary school in Hawaii. In January 2022, the magistrate ordered that the children be placed in Mother‘s legal custody. Father objected. The juvenile court held oral arguments in April 2022 and the parties entered additional evidence into the record, including supplеmental testimony from Mother and Father. The following month, the juvenile court held an in-camera interview with 11-year-old K.H.
{7} The juvenile court set aside the magistrate‘s order as “not supported by the evidence and not in accordance with the law.” The juvenile court considered the best-interest factors set forth under
{8} First, K.H. wanted to remain in Ohio with Father. See
{9} Ultimately, the juvenile court concluded that remaining in Ohio with Father was in the best interest of the children because Father offered stability and the least amount of disruption to the children‘s lives. The juvenile court awarded Father legal custody of the children and granted Mother pаrenting time during the summer.
II. Law and Analysis
{10} Mother challenges the juvenile court‘s custody award in two assignments of error. Specifically, she argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded that awarding custody of the children to Father was in the children‘s best interest. In support of her argument, she disputes the juvenile court‘s analysis of two statutory factors in
{11} Custody decisions “are some of the most difficult and agonizing” that a juvenile court must make, particularly when the decision concerns two loving parents, as is the case here. See Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). The juvenile court exercises broad discretion when allocating parental rights and responsibilities in a custody dispute. Owens v. Owens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210488, 2022-Ohio-3450, ¶ 31, citing Cwik v. Cwik, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090843, 2011-Ohio-463, ¶ 41, citing Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988).
{12} We therefore review the juvenile court‘s decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 14. A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). While we review for an abuse of discretion, we may not simply substitute our judgment for the juvenile court‘s even if we would have reached a different conclusion regarding the children‘s best interest. Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169, 559 N.E.2d 1301 (1990).
{13} In Ohio, a child‘s best interest is paramount when a court determines custody matters and allocates parental rights and responsibilities. See
{14} Mother does not contest that the juvenile court carefully considered, and thoroughly analyzed, the relevant statutory factors. Instead, she contests two of the juvenile court‘s findings under two best-interest factors in
Children‘s Interactions and Interrelationships
{15} The juvenile court must consider the “child[ren]‘s interaction[s] and interrelationship[s] with [their] parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the[ir] best interest.”
{16} First, Mother disputes the juvenile court‘s determination that “[b]oth parents were actively involved in raising the children.” The court explained that while Mother took on a greater share of the childcare responsibilities, “Father was the primary financial provider for the family and Mother had more time available to care for the children at times.” Mother disagrees and asserts that she was the primary caretaker and at times the sole caretaker, as well as the primary financial provider for the children. But long-time family friends testified that Father has always been a hands-on and active parent to the children, who adore him. Long-time neighbors in Ohio described Father as a patient and good parent and recalled consistently seeing
{17} Father stated that Mother “always took care of the medical appointments” and carried the children‘s health insurance. And Mother testified that she was resрonsible for morning and nighttime childcare after K.H.‘s birth. But she also testified that Father assisted with childcare at times and was the sole financial provider following L.H.‘s birth. And according to Mother‘s testimony, Father covered childcare costs after Mother returned to work and would assist in dropping L.H. off at daycare. Likewise, Maternal Grandmother testified that Father transported the children to her house in Northern Kentucky when Mother worked. Even Mother‘s long-time friend testified that Father is “really good, hands-on with [the children].” In sum, the evidence makes clear that both parents provided for the carе of the children. Therefore, this finding is supported by competent and credible evidence.
{18} Second, Mother disputes the juvenile court‘s finding that “[t]he children do not have any known social connections in Hawaii that are of significance, though they have some familiarity with some of Mother‘s friеnds.” She claims that the children started to develop meaningful relationships in Hawaii. Yet, Mother testified that K.H. was frustrated that there were no girls in their Hawaii neighborhood to play with and “unfortunately didn‘t have the opportunity to--she did have a good friend in school but didn‘t get an opportunity to fully interaсt with them because of the pandemic.” And we note that K.H. and L.H. might possibly develop lasting friendships and relationships in Hawaii. But numerous witnesses described their many existing friendships in Ohio, including K.H. in her in-camera interview. More to the point, “[the] child[ren]‘s best interest for allocating rights and responsibilities is based on
{19} Third, Mother disagrees with the juvenile court‘s conclusion that, “[I]f the parties remain where they presently are, the children will not be able to maintain as close of a relationship with the other parent, regardless of who receives custody, due to the physical distance involved.” Again, the evidence supports the juvenile court‘s finding. The children‘s paternal grandmother testified that “there was such a small window of opportunity to connect” with the children when they were living in Hawaii due to the time change. Likewise, Father described how the geographic and time distances limited his ability to communicate with the children in Hawaii.
{20} All told, the juvenile court‘s findings and analysis of the children‘s interrelationships and interactions under
The Children Were Adjusted To Life In Ohio
{21} In her second assignment of error, Mother disagrees with the juvenile court‘s findings regarding the children‘s adjustments to their home, school, and community under
{22} Beginning with the children‘s adjustment to school, the juvenile court found that K.H. was well adjusted to school and the community in Ohio, and that L.H. was not school aged when he lived in Hawaii. In particular, the juvenile court found that while K.H. performed better at her Hawaiian elementary school, “[T]here were questions related to the quality of education she was receiving and if she was being
{23} Turning to the children‘s adjustment to the community, the juvenile court found that, in Ohio, the children “routinely played with a network of friends” and participated in extracurricular activities. In contrast, the juvenile court found that the children “have not adjusted to their school and community in Hawaii.” The juvenile court acknowledged that while the children “did not require an adjustment to living with Mother and Maternal Grandmother,” the children would have to adjust to no longer living with Father in Ohio and “appeared to miss certain people that were no longer able to be a routine part of their lives while they were in Hawaii.” Once again, we need to look no further than Mother‘s own testimony, who stated that K.H. missed Father when she was in Hawaii. And K.H.‘s paternal grandmother described her as “sad and withdrawn” in Hawaii.
{24} While Mother acknowledges that relocating to Hawaii would require some adjustment by the children, she argues that the court failed to consider the children‘s adjustment upon returning to Ohio without Mоther. But the juvenile court recognized that living in Ohio with Father without Mother and Maternal Grandmother would be an adjustment for the children but noted that the children “appear to be doing well” following their return to Ohio.
III. Conclusion
{26} We overrule Mother‘s two assignments of error and affirm the juvenile court‘s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.